Social stigma: The affective consequences of attributional ambiguity.

Crocker, Jennifer; Voelkl, Kristin E.; Testa, Maria; Major, Brenda

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.218

Cited by 753 publications

(725 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

683

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, if people frequently fail to realize that they have been the victims of discrimination, this increases the likelihood that the status quo will forever remain the status quo. From a theoretical perspective, the minimization of personal disadvantage also flies in the face of a large research literature that has emphasized that stigmatized members often protect the self by making attributions to discrimination, rather than minimizing or denying it (Allport, 1954;Crocker & Major, 1989;Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, & Major, 1991;Dion & Earn, 1975). According to this perspective, stigmatized group members are highly aware of the negative stereotypes others hold of their group and are likely to attribute negative feedback to discrimination whenever cues of prejudice and discrimination are present (Major, Quinton, & McCoy, 2002; see also Feldman Barrett & Swim, 1998).…”

Section: Why Does It Matter?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To test the hypothesis that the need to belong influences judgments of the causes of personal discrimination in attributionally ambiguous situations, we conducted a conceptual replication of a study by Crocker et al (1991, Experiment 1). Crocker et al showed that women were more likely to attribute negative feedback to discrimination if the feedback came from a seemingly prejudiced as opposed to nonprejudiced (male) evaluator.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When fiends become friends: The need to belong and perceptions of personal and group discrimination.

Carvallo¹,

Pelham²

2006

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article examines the role that the need to belong (NTB) plays in people's judgments of personal and group discrimination and in the attributions people make for potentially discriminatory evaluations. The authors hypothesized that the NTB motivates people to conclude that (a) whereas they rarely experience personal discrimination, (b) their fellow in-group members do experience discrimination. In Study 1, people high in the NTB reported experiencing lower than average levels of personal and higher than average levels of group discrimination. In Study 2, an experimental manipulation of the NTB yielded similar results. In Study 3, women who were motivated to be accepted by a bogus male participant were less likely to attribute his negative evaluations of their work to prejudice.

show abstract

Section: Why Does It Matter?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

When fiends become friends: The need to belong and perceptions of personal and group discrimination.

Carvallo¹,

Pelham²

2006

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, Dardenne, Dumont, and Bollier (2007) found that "benevolent sexism" (i.e., the portrayal of women as warm but incompetent) led victims to experience self-doubt, whereas hostile sexism was more likely to result in victims' discounting of the opinions of harassers as discriminatory. Separately, Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, and Major (1991) found that participants who received negative feedback from a male evaluator, and who were in the experimental condition that enabled them to make an attribution of prejudice, reported a more positive mood than individuals who could not make an attribution of prejudice. Therefore, to the extent that victims are able to perceive sexual harassment as gender related, they may attribute the mistreatment to the perpetrator's prejudice toward their gender.…”

Section: Social Identity and Self-categorization Theories: Attacking mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment.

Hershcovis

Barling²

2010

Journal of Applied Psychology

157

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2 studies, we investigated victim attributions (Study 1) and outcomes (Study 2) for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Drawing on social categorization theory, we argue that victims of workplace aggression and sexual harassment may make different attributions about their mistreatment. In Study 1, we investigated victim attributions in an experimental study. We hypothesized that victims of sexual harassment are more likely than victims of workplace aggression to depersonalize their mistreatment and attribute blame to the perpetrator or the perpetrator's attitudes toward their gender. In contrast, victims of workplace aggression are more likely than victims of sexual harassment to personalize the mistreatment and make internal attributions. Results supported our hypotheses. On the basis of differential attributions for these 2 types of mistreatment, we argue that victims of workplace aggression may experience stronger adverse outcomes than victims of sexual harassment. In Study 2, we compared meta-analytically the attitudinal, behavioral, and health outcomes of workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Negative outcomes of workplace aggression were stronger in magnitude than those of sexual harassment for 6 of the 8 outcome variables. Implications and future directions are discussed.

show abstract

“…If anything, the available literature suggests that disidentification is more apt to be used as a coping mechanism at the level of the individual self (e.g., Gaertner et al, 1999, Experiment 1). Mussweiler, Gabriel, and Bodenhausen (2000) and Crocker, Voelki, Testa, and Major (1991) demonstrated that disidentification is used as a protective strategy in the face of threat to the individual self. Likewise, the tendency to publicly associate with a winning in-group is significantly more likely, if not done exclusively, following a threat to the individual self (Cialdini et al, 1976, Experiment 2).…”

Section: Alternative Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The "I," the "we," and the "when": A meta-analysis of motivational primacy in self-definition.

Gaertner¹,

Sedikides²,

Vevea³

et al. 2002

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the primary motivational basis of self-definition? The authors meta-analytically assessed 3 hypotheses: (a) The individual self is motivationally primary, (b) the collective self is motivationally primary, and (c) neither self is inherently primary; instead, motivational primacy depends on which self becomes accessible through contextual features. Results identified the individual self as the primary motivational basis of self-definition. People react more strongly to threat and enhancement of the individual than the collective self. Additionally, people more readily deny threatening information and more readily accept enhancing information when it pertains to the individual rather than the collective self, regardless of contextual influences. The individual self is the psychological home base, a stable system that can react flexibly to contextual influences.The right of nature . . . is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life.-Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.-Nathan Hale, spoken at his deathThe self is in a continual process of construction, it cannot be adequately made up excepting in terms of the content which it supplies for the situation in which the agent has to act. -John Dewey, Lectures on Psychological and Political EthicsThis article is concerned with a fundamental issue in psychology, education, social sciences, and humanities: Does the self-concept have a motivational hierarchy? Do all selves (i.e., self-definitions) have equal motivational potential? Which selfdefinition is motivationally primary?We distinguish among three theoretical approaches to the issue. The first approach, one example of which is Hobbes's statement, posits that the individual self is motivationally primary. The second approach, exemplified by Hale's proclamation, maintains that the collective self is motivationally primary. The third approach advocates that neither self is inherently primary. Instead, the self that is more accessible through situational or contextual influences is motivationally primary-a proposition that is in spirit with Dewey's thinking.We articulate the three theoretical approaches and review relevant research. We argue that, when considered alone, each approach appears to be supported. However, independent tests, per se, tell only part of the story. Comparative tests provide a more refined solution to the problem. We report a meta-analysis of empirical studies relevant to the issue of relative motivational status.

show abstract

Social stigma: The affective consequences of attributional ambiguity.

Cited by 753 publications

References 71 publications

When fiends become friends: The need to belong and perceptions of personal and group discrimination.

When fiends become friends: The need to belong and perceptions of personal and group discrimination.

Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment.

The "I," the "we," and the "when": A meta-analysis of motivational primacy in self-definition.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About